Post on 28-Dec-2015
transcript
2011-2012 COACHEFaculty Job Satisfaction Survey
Vice Provosts MeetingNovember 5, 2012
Betsy Brown and Nancy Whelchel
Why?
To systematically collect information from our faculty to help NC State assess (and improve!) the quality of work life
– Nature of work in research, teaching, and service– Resources to support faculty work– Tenure and promotion policies and practices– Leadership and governance– Department collegiality, quality, and engagement– Benefits, compensation, and work/life– Interdisciplinary work and collaboration– Mentoring– Appreciation and recognition
Who? • Developed by Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (Harvard
Graduate School of Education)• Over 75 participating colleges/universities • NC State COACHE peers
– Clemson University– Kansas State University– Purdue University– SUNY-Albany– University of Tennessee
• Population:– Pre-tenure and tenured faculty– Non-tenure track faculty (part of pilot study; no COACHE peer comparisons)– Full-time– Hired prior to July 1, 2011– Not in terminal year after being denied tenure
• What about staff? Planning for NCSU Staff Well-Being Survey, Spring 2014
When, How and What?
• October 2011 – January 2012– NC State also participated in 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 surveys (pre-tenure
faculty only)
• Online survey• Results are/will be available for
– Faculty overall (pre-tenure, tenured, non-tenure track)– Pre-tenure/tenured faculty
• Overall & by gender, race/ethnicity, tenure status, rank, college• Compared to COACHE peers• Compared to results from previous COACHE surveys (pre-tenured only)
– Non-tenure track faculty• Overall & by gender, race/ethnicity, college• Compared to pre-tenure/tenured faculty• Note: Current reports exclude Librarians (will be provided separately)
Response Rates:Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty
ffPre-Tenure/Tenured
Faculty
NC State COACHE PeersAll COACHE Institutions
Pop RespsResp Rate Pop Resps
Resp Rate Pop Resps
Resp Rate
Overall 1,362 800 59% 5,113 2,631 51% 27,660 13,634 49%
Tenure Status
Pre-Tenure 247 145 59% 1,170 653 56% 7,772 3,973 51%
Tenured 1,115 655 59% 3,943 1,978 50% 19,888 9,661 49%
Rank
Associate 426 247 58% 1,690 856 51% 9,711 4,689 48%
Full 702 416 59% 2,300 1,138 49% 10,618 5,117 48%
Gender
Male 1,014 571 56% 3,588 1,729 48% 17,710 8,151 46%
Female 348 229 66% 1,525 902 59% 9,950 5,483 55%
Race/Ethnicity
White 1,096 669 61% 4,041 2,159 53% 21,332 10,897 51%
Faculty of Color 264 130 49% 1,071 471 44% 6,269 2,725 43%
Response Rates:Non-Tenure Track Faculty
ffNC State Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Pop RespResp Rate
Overall 432 197 46%Gender Male 231 94 44% Female 219 103 47%Race/Ethnicty White 370 175 47% Faculty of Color 53 22 42%
Presentation of Results
• Focus on– Global satisfaction– NC State pre-tenure/tenured faculty compared to COACHE peers– NC State pre-tenured/tenured faculty
• Overall• Sub-group comparisons
– Gender– Race/ethnicity– Tenure status– Rank
– NC State NTT faculty • Overall• Compared to pre-tenure/tenured faculty• Gender comparisons• Note: No race/ethnicity comparisons due to no notable differences in responses• Note: Not reporting on comparisons to results from previous COACHE surveys
(limited trend data due to changes in population and questions)
Presentation of Results cont.
• Methods– COACHE items typically ask for ‘agreement’ or ‘satisfaction’ with a
particular statement or area of work– COACHE uses a 5-point response scale– Higher numbers represent more positive or favorable opinions– Reporting on average ratings– “Notable difference” between groups exist when the difference in
averages rating is +/- 0.25. – Within reports for a sub-group, “higher” = 4.0 and above, “lower” =
2.75 or below
Global Satisfaction:NC State Faculty Overall
Overall, faculty are satisfied working at NC State
– 74% are “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their department as a place to work
– 67% would choose to work at NC State again if starting over– 65% are “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with NC State as a place to
work– 51% would “strongly recommend” their department as a place to
work to someone of their same rank– 60% of pre-tenured & 70% of NTTs plan to stay at NC State for
“ten years or more”• Most common reasons contributing to thinking about leaving?
– To retire (23%)– To improve salary/benefits (22%)
Global Satisfaction:NC State Faculty Overall
Out of a list of 30 possible aspects of work…
•Most commonly cited “best aspects” about working at NC State?– Geographic location (40% NTT, 32% pre-tenure, 42% tenured)– Quality of colleagues (28%, 34%, 32% respectively)– Academic freedom (18%, 14%, 19%)– Support of colleagues (16%, 15%,13%)– My sense of fit here (13%, 21%, 15%)
•Most commonly cited “worst aspects” about working at NC State?– Compensation (49% NTT, 40% pre-tenure, and 40% tenured)– Lack of support for research/creative work (8%, 12%,18% respectively)– Quality of graduate students (1%, 14%, 10%)– Quality of facilities (9%, 10%, 12%)
NC State / COACHE Peer Comparisons
(Pre-Tenured/Tenured Faculty Combined)
• NC State faculty have ratings similar to our COACHE peers for almost all items
• Bragging rights…– NC State has notably more favorable ratings than
peers for• Classrooms (3.71 NC State vs 3.23 Peers)• Library resources (4.17 vs 3.76)• Department culture encourages promotion (3.97 vs 3.68)• Mentoring of associate faculty (2.69 vs 2.42)• Offices (3.95 vs 3.69)
NC State / COACHE Peer Comparisons
(Pre-Tenured/Tenured Faculty Combined)
• Areas of relative weakness– NC State has notably less favorable ratings than
peers for• Health benefits for family (2.25 NC State vs 3.46 Peers)• Health benefits for employee (2.78 vs 3.58)• Tuition waivers, remission or exchange (2.16 vs 2.70)• Retirement benefits (3.06 vs 3.44)• Clerical/administrative support (2.98 vs 3.31)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Most Favorably Rated Aspects of Work
(Average = 4.0 or higher)
• Nature of Work– Discretion over courses taught
(4.40)– Influence on focus of research
(4.34)– Level of courses taught (4.10)
• Resources– Library resources (4.17)
• Mentoring– Importance of mentoring w/in
dept (4.18)– Being a mentor is fulfilling
(4.10)
• Tenure/Promotion– Tenure: Reasonableness of
teaching expectations (4.15)– Tenure: Reasonableness of
scholarship expectations (4.01)– Promotion: Clarity of process
(4.05)– Promotion: Clarity of body of
evidence (4.00)
• Department Life– Meeting times compatible w/
personal needs (4.13)– Intellectual vitality of pre-tenure
faculty (4.09)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Least Favorably Rated Aspects of Work
(Average = 2.75 or lower)
• Compensation/Benefits– Tuition
wavers/remission/exchange (2.16)
– Housing benefits (2.20)– Health benefits for family (2.25)– Childcare (2.33)– Eldercare (2.59)
• Governance/Leadership– Priorities are acted on
consistently (2.50)– Dean’s support in adapting to
change (2.56)– Priorities are stated consistently
(2.68)
• Interdisciplinary Work– Budgets encourage interdisc work
(2.52)– Facilities are conducive to interdisc
work (2.59)– Interdisc work is rewarded in merit
(2.61)– Interdisc work is rewarded in
promotion (2.66)
• Mentoring– Support for faculty to be good
mentors (2.37)– Mentoring of associate faculty (2.69)
• Nature of Work– Support for research (2.72)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Gender
• Women gave notably more favorable ratings than men in just a few areas– Personal and family policies
• Housing benefits• Tuition waivers, remission, exchange
– Mentoring• Effectiveness of mentoring from outside the department / outside the
university• Importance of mentoring from outside the department / outside the
university
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Gender
Women gave notably less favorable ratings than men on most items, especially for*:
•Promotion and Tenure– Department culture encourages promotion (3.56
vs 4.11) – Clarity of promotion process (3.70 vs 4.17)– Clarity of time frame for promotion (3.31 vs 3.78)– Clarity of promotion criteria (3.64 vs 4.04)– Tenure decisions are performance based (3.44 vs
3.89)– Clarity of expectations as an advisor (3.07 vs 3.47)
•Nature of work – Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.11
vs 3.53)– Equity of committee assignments 2.06 vs 3.37
• Mentoring– Support for faculty to be good mentors
(2.06 vs 2.47)– Mentoring of associate faculty (2.32 vs
2.82)
• Other– Right balance between
professional/personal (3.02 vs 3.50)– College is valued by Provost (3.01 vs 3.49)– Department is valued by Provost (2.77 vs
3.21)– Colleagues committed to
diversity/inclusion (3.68 vs 4.08)
* Items with at least a 0.40 difference (rather than 0.25) in average ratings given by women and men
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity
• Faculty of color gave notably more favorable ratings than white faculty for– Nature of work
• Support for travel to present/conduct research (3.23 vs2.97)• Support for faculty in leadership roles (3.22 vs 2.81)• Ability to balance teaching/research/service (3.66 vs 3.36)
– Interdisciplinary work• Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in tenure (3.11 vs 2.80)
– Tenure policies, clarity, reasonableness• Clarity of body of evidence for deciding tenure (4.00 vs 3.70)• Clarity of expectations: advisor (3.56 vs 3.23)
– Retention• Decision to remain here is based on promotion (3.64 vs 3.24)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity
Faculty of color gave notably less favorable ratings than white faculty for:
•Promotion: Clarity of– Promotion process (3.81 vs 4.09)– Promotion criteria (3.68 vs 3.99)– Promotion standards (3.41 vs 3.68)– Time frame for promotion (3.39 vs 3.71)– Whether I will be promoted (3.08 vs
3.34)
•Overall satisfaction– Visible leadership for support of
diversity/inclusion (3.44 vs 4.05)– I would again choose this institution
(3.51 vs 3.76)
• Department collegiality, engagement, and quality
– Colleagues are committed to diversity/inclusion (3.58 vs 4.03)
– Department is successful at faculty retention (3.21 vs 3.49)
• Personal and family policies– Stop-the-clock policies (3.42 vs
3.71)– Salary (2.48 vs 2.83)
• Collaboration– Opportunities for collaboration
within the department (3.42 vs 3.84)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Tenure Status
Pre-tenure faculty gave notably more favorable ratings than tenured faculty for:
•Nature of work– Support for travel to present/conduct
research (3.26 vs 2.96)– Support for faculty in leadership roles (3.13
vs 2.83)
•Facilities and work resources– Clerical/administrative support (3.21 vs 2.93)
•Personal and family policies
– Tuition waivers/remission/exchange (2.43 vs 2.10)
•Health and retirement benefits– Retirement benefits (3.35 vs 3.00)
• Mentoring– Effectiveness of mentoring from
outside the institution (3.92 vs 3.64)
– Importance of mentoring• Within department (4.41 vs
4.13)• Outside department (3.53 vs
3.26)• Outside the institution (3.93 vs
3.49)
• Leadership and Governance– Dean: support in adapting to
change (2.78 vs 2.52)– Head: fairness in evaluating work
(4.17 vs 3.86)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Tenure Status
• Pre-tenure faculty gave notably less favorable ratings than tenured faculty on only one item– Right balance between professional/personal (3.02 vs 3.43)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Rank
• Associate professors gave notably more favorable ratings than full professors on only a few items
• Eldercare (2.87 vs 2.51)• Importance of mentoring outside department (3.46 vs 3.17)• Importance of mentoring outside the institution (3.67 vs 3.40)
Pre-Tenure/Tenured Faculty:Comparisons by Rank
Associate professors gave notably less favorable ratings than full professors on most items, especially for*:
•Promotion– Reasonableness of expectations for
promotion (3.46 vs 4.14)– Department culture encourages promotion
(3.45 vs 4.26)– Clarity of
• Time frame for promotion (3.06 vs 4.00)
• Promotion process (3.56 vs 4.33)• Body of evidence for promotion (3.56
vs 4.24)• Promotion criteria (3.54 vs 4.17)• Promotion standards (3.28 vs 3.84)
• Nature of work– Ability to balance
teaching/research/service (3.15 vs 3.59)
• Mentoring/Collaboration– Mentoring of associate faculty (2.28 vs
2.94)– Support for faculty to be good mentors
(2.10 vs 2.51)– Opportunities for collaboration within
department (3.65 vs 3.91)
* Items with at least a 0.40 difference (rather than 0.25) in average ratings given by associate and full professors
Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Most Favorably Rated Aspects of Work
(Average = 4.0 or higher)
• Nature of Work– Discretion over courses content (4.30)– Time spent on teaching (4.24)
• Resources– Library resources (4.30)
• Mentoring– Importance of mentoring w/in dept (4.33)– Being a mentor is fulfilling (4.06)
Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Least Favorably Rated Aspects of Work
(Average = 2.75 or lower)
• Promotion– Clarity of NTT promotion process (2.58)– Clarity of NTT promotion standards
(2.59)– Clarity of NTT promotion criteria (2.64)– Clarity of body of evidence for
promotion for NTTs (2.69)– Clarity of whether will be promoted
(2.69)
• Department life– Dept addresses sub-standard
performance (2.42)– Discussions of grad student learning
(2.56)
• Nature of Work– Availability of course release for
research (2.73)
• Mentoring– Mentoring of non-tenure track faculty
in department (2.56)– Support for faculty to be good mentors
(2.64)
• Interdisciplinary Work– Interdisc work is rewarded in merit
(2.68)– Interdisc work is rewarded in
promotion (2.71)
• Compensation/Benefits– Childcare (2.45)– Housing benefits (2.63)– Spousal/partner hiring programs (2.63)– Salary (2.65)– Health benefits for family (2.75)
Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Compared to Tenure Track Faculty
(Pre-tenured/Tenured Combined)
• NTT faculty gave notably more favorable ratings than pre-tenure/tenured faculty for many (most) items, especially those related to….– Nature of work: Support for research, teaching, etc. – Personal and family policies (incl balance, flexible workload/duties,)– Health and retirement benefits– Leadership and governance
Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Compared to Tenure Track Faculty
(Pre-tenured/Tenured Combined)
NTTs gave notably less favorable ratings than pre-tenure/tenured faculty for:
•Department life– Discussions of graduate student learning (2.56 vs 3.59)– Discussions of current research methods (2.93 vs 3.40)– Amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty
(3.36 vs 3.76)– How well you fit (3.28 vs 3.67)– Teaching effectiveness of tenured faculty (3.37 vs 3.76)– Amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty
(3.43 vs 3.82)– Department addresses sub-standard performance (2.42
vs 2.79)– Amount of person interaction have w/ pre-tenure faculty
(3.34 vs 3.64)– Teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty (3.67 vs
3.96)
• Appreciation and recognition– Recognition for scholarship (3.16 vs
3.41)
• Nature of work– Influence over focus of research (3.99
vs 4.34)
• Collaboration– Opportunities for collaboration outside
the institution (3.39 vs 3.86)
• Mentoring– Effectiveness of mentoring from outside
the institution (3.44 vs 3.70)
Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Comparisons by Gender
NTT females gave notably more favorable ratings than NTT males for:
•Facilities and work resources – Office (3.98 vs 3.69)– Laboratory, research, studio space (3.71
vs 3.36)– Equipment (3.98 vs 3.68)
•Personal and family policies– Tuition waivers, remission, or exchange
(3.68 vs 3.20)
•Health and retirement benefits– Retirement benefits (3.66 vs 3.38)– Phased retirement options (3.38 vs 3.05)
• Mentoring– Importance of mentoring within
the department (4.48 vs 4.17)– Importance of mentoring outside
the department (3.54 vs 3.29)
• Departmental life– Discussions of effective
technology practices (3.77 vs 4.46)
• Global satisfaction– I would again choose this
institution (4.13 vs 3.79)
Non-Tenure Track Faculty:Comparisons by Gender
NTT females gave notably less favorable ratings than NTT males for:
•Promotion of NTT faculty– Clarity of promotion process (2.42 vs
2.76)– Clarity of promotion criteria (2.49 vs2.81)– Clarity of promotion standards (2.40 vs
2.80)
•Mentoring– Mentoring of NTT faculty (2.41 vs 2.73)– Support for faculty to be good mentors
(2.43 vs 2.86)
•Nature of work– Expectations for finding external funding
(3.25 vs 3.58)
• Department life– Amount of personally interaction
with tenured faculty (3.11 vs 3.44)
– Amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty (2.23 vs 3.51)
– Department address sub-standard performance (2.17 vs 2.67)
• Leadership– Head/chair: support in adapting to
change (3.13 vs 3.62)
• Personal and family policies– Childcare (2.14 vs 2.69)
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Overall
• Some of the good…– Overall, faculty feel positive about NC State– Faculty believe academic freedom is supported (e.g., in research, teaching)– Faculty like the physical environment (e.g., office, classrooms)
• Some of the not so good…– NC State health and retirement benefits get among the lowest ratings of
institutions participating in COACHE– “Compensation” (including benefits and salary) is the top reason (other
than “retirement”) faculty say they would leave NC State – Interdisciplinary work is important to faculty, but not seen as
supported/rewarded– Women and associate professors are notably less satisfied than men and
full professors, respectively, on a wide range of issues
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Pre-Tenured Faculty Pre-tenure faculty rated several areas higher than tenured
faculty (+.25) – Support for research, clerical/administrative support– Personal and family policies: tuition waivers, health
benefits, retirement – Mentoring within and outside the department
or lower (-.25) – Support for leadership roles– Balance between professional and personal realms
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Female Faculty Female faculty rated several areas higher than male faculty(+.25) such as
– Personal and family policies: housing, tuition waivers, spousal/partner hiring – Mentoring: importance and effectiveness outside the department
or lower (-.25) such as – Nature of work: time and support for teaching and research, leadership roles– Balance among teaching/research/service and professional/personal roles– Interdisciplinary work: facilities, evaluation, rewards in merit pay and promotion– Mentoring of pre-tenure and associate faculty – Tenure and promotion: clarity of expectations and process, reasonableness of
expectations; “whether I will be promoted’ (tenured women)– Leadership: pace and fairness of decisions, department collegiality and support for
work/life balance, visible departmental and institutional support for diversity
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Faculty of Color Faculty of color rated several areas higher than white faculty(+.25) such as
– Support for travel, leadership roles, balance of teaching, research, service
– Tenure: clarity of evidence– Interdisciplinary work : Rewarded in tenure decisions
or lower (-.25) such as – Personal and family benefits: stop-the-clock policies, salary– Opportunities for collaboration in department– Promotion: clarity of process, criteria, standards, time frame, “whether
I will be promoted” (tenured FOC)– Department: commitment to diversity, success at retention of faculty– Leadership: institutional support for diversity
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Associate Professors
Associate professors rated several areas higher than white faculty(+.25) such as – Mentoring: importance of mentoring outside the department and institution
or lower (-.25) such as– Time for research, support for teaching (TAs), number of students, choice
of committees– Ability to balance teaching/research/service, balance between professional
and personal roles– Opportunities for collaboration inside and outside the department– Mentoring for pre-tenure and associate faculty, support for mentors– Promotion: clarity of process, criteria, standards, body of evidence, time
frame– Collegiality/departmental fit – Appreciation/recognition for scholarship, service, outreach
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Non-Tenure Track FacultyNon-tenure Track (NTT) faculty rated several areas higher (4.0 or higher)
– Importance of mentoring– Discretion over course content– Time spent teaching
or lower (2.75 or lower) such as– Promotion: clarity of process, criteria, standards, body of evidence,
“whether I will be promoted”– Personal and family benefits: childcare, spousal/partner hiring, salary,
health benefits – Interdisciplinary work: reward in merit and promotion– Mentoring of NTT faculty in department
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Non-Tenure Track Faculty NTT faculty rated several areas higher than tenured/tenure track (T/TT) faculty
(+.25) – Support: for research, grants, travel, leadership roles
clerical/administrative support– Time: service, teaching– Personal and family policies: tuition waivers, flexible workloads, work/life
compatibility, health benefits, retirement – Leadership: clear and consistent priorities, communication of priorities,
faculty input
or lower (-.25) – Department: personal and professional interaction with T/TT faculty,
feeling of fit, teaching effectiveness of T/TT faculty, collegiality – Recognition for scholarship
Implications and Areas for Discussion:
Female NTT Faculty Female NTT faculty rated several areas higher (+25) than male NTT faculty:
– Facilities and equipment– Health and retirement benefits– Importance of mentoring– Would choose NC State again
or lower (-.25) – Childcare– Mentoring and support for mentors– Promotion: clarity of process, criteria, standards– Personal and professional interaction with tenured faculty
Important Areas for Discussion and Action
Benefits: Health benefits for employees and families, tuition waivers, remission or exchange, retirement benefits, compensation
Support: Clerical/administrative support, support for research, interdisciplinary work, leadership roles
Work/life policies and support: Balance between professional and personal realms, childcare, spousal/partner hiring
Mentoring: outside but especially inside departments (female, FOC, associate profs), support for mentors
Interdisciplinarity: support, administrative structures, rewards Tenure and promotion: clarity of expectations and process, reasonableness of expectations;
“whether I will be promoted” (women, FOC, NTT faculty, )Leadership: Clarity of priorities, clarity and pace of decision making, department collegiality,
support for work/life balance, visible departmental and institutional support for diversityLower general satisfaction of women and associate professors compared to men and full professors
–
Next Steps
• Presentation to the Deans Council this week• Discuss results with Faculty Well Being Advisory
Committee• Presentation to the Faculty Senate• Post reports on UPA website• Presentations to other groups on campus as
appropriate• Participate in COACHE every 3 years (next in 2014-
2015
VOTE OBAMA TOMORROW